:“[[Bush|Bush’s]] [[Middle Eastern]] policies are bad. Bush is like Hitler!”

:“[[Bush|Bush’s]] [[Middle Eastern]] policies are bad. Bush is like Hitler!”

:“Godwin’s Law! Argument invalid LOL!”

:“Godwin’s Law! Argument invalid LOL!”

−

:“InvertedGodwin’s Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore Bush is like Hitler.”

+

:“Godwin’sLaw's Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore Bush is like Hitler.”

Line 35:

Line 35:

:“The [[admin]]s deleted my [[article]]. This is censorship! Admins are like Hitler!”

:“The [[admin]]s deleted my [[article]]. This is censorship! Admins are like Hitler!”

:“Godwin’s Law! Argument invalid LOL!”

:“Godwin’s Law! Argument invalid LOL!”

−

:“InvertedGodwin’s Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore admins are like Hitler.”

+

:“Godwin’sLaw's Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore admins are like Hitler.”

Line 54:

Line 54:

*[[HowTo:Win an Argument]]

*[[HowTo:Win an Argument]]

−

[[Category:Hitler]]

+

[[Category:Adolf Hitler]]

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Law]]

Latest revision as of 12:38, February 11, 2014

Mike Godwin, the inventor of Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law's Law, also known as "Godwin's Rule of Godwin's Law analogies", states that: “As an onlinediscussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison invoking Godwin’s Law approaches 1.” Godwin’s Law's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against comparing comparisons with Hitler or the Nazi regime with Godwin’s Law to void an argument that might otherwise be valid, to void the voiding of that argument.

Godwin’s Law's Law merely makes an observation that as an online discussion grows, if the probability of invoking Hitler approaches 1, then the probability of invoking Godwin’s Law approaches 1 as well. By citing Godwin’s Law's Law, however, the user is usually implying that Godwin’s Law does not make a Hitler comparison invalid, as Hitler comparisons can sometimes be very justifiable and reasonable, and also the people who cite Godwin’s Law are people who favourdictatorships, fascist regimes and totalitarian forms of government.

Contents

Godwin’s Law's Law was formulated by users who are unsatisfied with how otherwise valid Hitler comparisons can be ridiculed and voided by the mention of Godwin’s Law. Sun Tzu once said: “All of warfare is deception. One must pretend to be weak while one is strong, and pretend to be strong while one is weak.” When your opponents cite Godwin’s Law, they would be under the impression that they had won the argument, and lower their defenses. That is when you strike.

Godwin’s Law's Law is not used widely outside of online discussions, because in real life, comparing someone to Hitler would involve censorship by the Anti-Defamation League. The law has not been widely adopted, but its use is slowly gaining momentum. The principle of Godwin's Law's Law can be used even when Godwin's Law is not invoked in the first place, and therefore loved by debaters for its convenience. The principle in question is that, even though a Hitler comparison was made, it does not render your arguments invalid, and Hitler comparisons can be justifiable in certain circumstances. Indeed, invoking Godwin's Law is essentially stating that "Hitler comparisons occur in long online discussions, therefore they are invalid". This is logical fallacy in itself.

An example of a possible use is when protesting. Protests invariably involve comparing something or somebody to Hitler, and this will attract the ridicule of people such as The Daily Show'sJon Stewart. When these people make fun of your very logical, reasonable, and well-researched Hitler comparisons, you can use the central principle of the Godwin’s Law's Law mentioned above. Additionally, politicians or pundits who are persecuted for their beliefs of their opponent's likeness to Hitler, can also use this law to protect their sane, reasonable and not at all polarizing viewpoints. This law essentially protects the Freedom of Speech rights of the People, which is taken away whenever Godwin's Law is mentioned. In fact, the original Godwin's Law is something akin to censorship, the kind of censorship only practiced in communist and totalitarian regimes.

“Godwin’s Law's Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore kitten huffers are like Hitler.”

“Godwin’s Law's Law's Law! Just because you compared something to Godwin’s Law's Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore you argument was invalid!”

“Godwin’s Law's Law's Law's Law! Just because you compared something to the Godwin’s Law's Law's Law doesn’t make it invalid! Therefore your argument that my argument was invalid, was invalid!”

The last argument may go on and on. This happens rarely, but when it does, it is considered a small setback of Godwin’s Law's Law - that the law can be used against the person who cited it. In such a situation, the side with the most patience, perseverance, stupidity and obnoxiousness wins in the end. Therefore the method is used most widely in Wikipedia. In real life, however, people generally win after they cite the Inverted Godwin's Law. These people are known as winners, and their opponents will be known as losers who support genocide, ethnic cleansing, socialism, communism, fascism and funny mustache growth.